LA ESQUINA CALIENTE (THE HOT CORNER) - A STUDY OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY IN ACTION AROUND THE WORLD

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY vs REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

We as citizens of the United States observe politics from afar and the vast majority of us may participate in the political process only to the extent that we go to the polls once a year to vote. We may endeavor to follow the news accounts of our nation's politics as they unfold, and of the consequences those political actions yield, but we have little power to influence our "democratically" elected officials. Perhaps we write an occasional letter to our senator or representative, but we almost inevitably receive a vague and impersonal response explaining why they will vote in our opposition.

Over the decades, our representative democracy has been systematically undermined and has ultimately failed in preserving the well being of the people of this nation. The system that the founding fathers painstakingly devised in order to best serve the interests and the will of the people has been corrupted and the systems of checks and balances on power that they instituted have been stripped away. Most of us accept this reality as being beyond our control and continue to observe, comment, and complain without aspiring to achieving any real change, without any hope of instituting a new system of governance that would instead take directly into account your views, and the views of your neighbors, and would empower you to make real positive change possible in your communities.

This site will attempt to explore in depth the places in the world where people are successfully bringing about that type of change in the face of similar odds, where an alternate form of democracy, which is called participatory or direct democracy, is taking root. Initiative, referendum & recall, community councils, and grassroots organizing are but a few ways in which direct/participatory democracy is achieving great success around the world.

Our system of representative democracy does not admit the voice of the people into congressional halls, the high courts, or the oval office where our rights and our liberties are being sold out from underneath us. Our local leaders and activists in our communities, and even those local elected officials who may have the best of intentions are for the most part powerless to make real positive change happen in our neighborhoods, towns and villages when there is so much corruption from above.

In places like Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, South Africa, India, and the Phillipines, new experiments in grass roots community based governance are taking place. There is much to be learned from these and other examples of participatory democracy from around the world when we try to examine how this grass-roots based governance could begin to take root here in our own country in order to alter our political system so that it might better serve the American people.

In the hope that one day we can become a nation working together as a united people practicing true democracy as true equals, we open this forum…

We’ve dealt with the barangay as a government, as a corporation, and as an economy. Anyone who doesn’t know why these three aspects are important or how each is supposed to be managed has no business demanding or preaching about good governance. And any official who doesn’t know how to make each one functional has no business staying in office.

What's your take on the Mindanao crisis? Discuss views with other readers

It’s been over a decade and a half since the Local Government Code of 1991 became law. It was meant 1) to correct the imbalance of power between the national and the local, 2) to lessen excessive centralization at the top, 3) to devolve what properly should be exercised by the intermediate and primary levels of government, and 4) to empower the community by giving the people an official role in overseeing its affairs.

But while the first three are substantially operative, the fourth and most important for the proper functioning of democracy – empowerment -- has been ignored. The people are still uninvolved, powerless, unable to participate in governance. Instead they are controlled and manipulated by the barangay chairman and his cohorts. And it’s all due to ignorance.

Ignorance about the barangay as a government -- with a direct democracy and a parliamentary form -- has turned it into an oligarchy of mostly incompetent officials that feed on its income. Ignorant chairmen not only trivialize the role of the people, they arrogate their power and govern the community arbitrarily, turning the kagawads and the sangguniang kabataan into puppets. Equally ignorant of their role, the citizens are mere spectators instead of actors in local governance. Even civil society seems clueless; they’re focused on the upper governments.

The legislative governing body called Barangay Assembly -- the local parliament consisting of all adult residents -- does not convene or hold deliberations. The people themselves are ignorant of their role in it. Failing to meet or decide collectively, the community cannot determine let alone express its collective will. It cannot form a consensus on anything. Voiceless, they are helpless, vulnerable to manipulation by the forces of corruption.

Worse, the leading citizens surrender the community’s fate to power-obsessed little trapos. They reinforce the barangay chairman’s thinking that he is a little president/commander-in-chief when in fact he is a little prime minister presiding over a parliamentary government -- with the people as members of parliament; as such they’re supposed to be the foil against abuse by the chairman. It is a non-performing government.

Ignorance about the barangay as a corporation makes it rely on subsidies, mainly on the internal revenue allotment (IRA) -- which the officials spend like an allowance instead of as capital for development. Clueless about the barangay’s corporate powers, they don’t organize enterprises to generate their own revenues. They do not enter into joint ventures with other barangays or tap private equity to capitalize enterprises including cooperatives, micro-lending or even a modest public utility like a water system, a shuttle service to and from the market, to and from the school, or wherever people need to be ferried. The idea of a subsidiary company to develop profitable opportunities is alien to them. They have overseas workers interested in ventures to create employment or income for those left behind, but there’s no initiative to do so. It’s a non-performing corporation.

As an economy, there is no attempt to explore the development of their land, labor or capital. They don’t inventory resources. Rural barangays don’t exploit opportunities offered by their nature-rich and exotic areas -- for ecotourism, recreation, adventure, or agribusiness. There are tropical beaches, lush forests, rolling plains, winding rivers, and underground wealth that are neglected. If at all, these are exploited by economic predators who strip their environment and leave nothing for future generations. Even their forest products and herbal goods are taken right under their noses to be exported or patented, depriving generations of their present and future value. It’s a non-performing economy.

Urban barangays neglect the production, marketing or financing possibilities in their own backyard. Entrepreneurs, craftsmen and assorted talents in their neighborhoods cry out to be discovered or supported but are ignored. Their fate is left to opportunists that trawl the community and strip it of its human and other resources.

Barangays form the base on which our republic’s politics and economics is built. But ignorance about the people’s role in it and the failure to develop it is making it a “bonsai” republic!

A researcher in the development of referendums, initiatives and other methods of direct democracy since the 1970s, Professor Theo Schiller of the department of political science at Phillips University in Marburg, Germany, is chairman of the supervisory committee for the Initiative and Referendum Institute (IRI) - Europe.

After convening a major conference on "World Direct Democracy" in Aarau, Switzerland, Schiller discussed the potential and the problems of direct democracy methods for "democratizing democracy" in Europe and Asia, including Taiwan.

Q: Some proponents say that direct democracy can do everything that representative democracy does and does it better. Do you agree?

A: Representative democracy must provide the foundation for any democratic system. Direct democracy cannot replace representative democracy, but direct democracy methods can improve and supplement the political processes in representative democracies; and inject new life into representative systems by providing procedures which allow citizens to raise issues on decision-making agenda without the mediation of political parties through "popular initiatives" that may become referendums; or to settle an issue by a direct popular vote through referendum instead of parliamentary procedures. In representative democracies, there are always some areas that are overlooked or neglected so there is always a certain lack of responsiveness in representative systems. In these neglected areas of political life, direct democracy methods can help to articulate the interests of minorities or neglected groups of people, and such people can use direct democracy to push for improvements and innovations.

Q: Most European countries incorporate some forms of direct democracy, but is there any potential for the use of direct democracy at the EU level?

A: The European Union political system is not yet a complete representative democratic system, but a deficit or a secondary representative democracy that is far less representative than the systems of EU member countries. At present, we cannot see how the European political system can develop toward full-scale representative democracy and therefore there is even more need for direct democracy in Europe on the European level than in the individual national democracies. Ideally, we would need direct democracy on the European level in two forms. First, we need the right of popular or people's initiative and the institution of "optional referendum" through which EU citizens would be able to affirm or reject legislation on a EU level. However, at the current phase of political development in the EU, we will not get these rights. However, the proposed "European Citizen Initiative" which is contained in the proposed Treaty of Lisbon is a very first step. The ECI will be only a kind of "agenda initiative" through which one million people can put an initiative on the political agenda through their signatures on an initiative petition and is a very small first step to begin a development toward more direct democracy on the European level. I believe it is very important to get the Treaty of Lisbon, which has been stalled by its rejection by referendum in Ireland in June, ratified and the ECI implemented so that citizens in the EU will be able to use this first truly European transnational instrument of direct democracy.

Q: What lessons can we learn from the experience of the Swiss system of direct democracy?

A: Switzerland is a special case with a long history of direct democracy. In most other European countries and other parts of the world, we are still a long way from formulating the rules and to have the courage to give access to these methods of direct democracy not just to majorities or large minorities but also to small groups so they can initiate and put new issues on the agenda and stir up new debates and deliberations. And there must also be much time for discussions by citizens on initiatives or referendums in society because only on the basis of thorough discussion and debate can the quality of direct democracy methods be developed.

Q: What is your assessment of the prospects of direct democracy in the new democracies in Eastern Europe?

A: Instruments of direct democracy were introduced in Eastern Europe, especially in those countries which strived for independence such as the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as well as Slovakia and Slovenia. In connection with gaining independence, they had a concept that democratic transformation was a process of the whole nation and therefore they set the rules for using people's initiatives very high because they felt that initiatives or referendums should only be used by large majorities so as not to allow any small group the right of initiative. But this belief has proven to be wrong. These high thresholds now block the use of direct democracy instruments which cannot have any utility beyond consolidation of power. Unless these countries lower or eliminate unreasonable thresholds on petitions and turnout quorums, it will be impossible for direct democracy methods to realize their most important function, which is to give the right of people's initiative to minorities so that they can articulate neglected interests and values.

Q: What is your evaluation of the experience of Asian countries with direct democracy methods?

A: In a general way, the experience in most Asian countries has been similar to that of Eastern Europe, but in Asia, there are also several countries with rather authoritarian systems in which the transformation of the power structures has not even begun, including places like Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, not to mention China or Burma. Other countries, such as Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines, have instruments of direct democracy, but the context of the transformation of the whole power system has yet to be developed further.

Q: Does this pessimistic evaluation hold for Taiwan as well?

A: If you look at Taiwan comparatively in terms of democratic development, what is surely necessary is one or two changes in the parliamentary majority. So far, we have had two periods in which the president and the executive branch were controlled by a different party than the traditional power but in which the parliamentary majority did not change. What is very important is that there should be a change in the parliamentary majority because such a change in the parliamentary majority is a necessary condition for a genuine democratic transformation. In that period, it may be possible to deal with some issues in the reform of direct democracy and the current referendum law, but direct democracy may even be a factor bringing this process forward. However, changes of power in the Executive branch are not enough. Unless there is a change in the parliamentary majority, the democratic transformation will remain incomplete. However, it is clear that external factors and external relations can greatly influence the internal chances for such a transformation.

Q: Taiwan had two referenda together with the January legislative elections and the March presidential election that were nominally initiatives but promoted by the then governing Democratic Progressive Party. How do you evaluate their significance?

A: People's initiatives from the bottom that lead to referendums are in the last analysis more important than plebiscites or other referendums from the top down in securing democratic transformations. Even if referendums initiated by the people from the bottom up lose, they are very valuable as they activate participation of the citizens. Even if the two referendums earlier this year did not gain valid passage, they still have a legacy of having activated citizen participation and so they can contribute to the process of the development of democracy in Taiwan.

Q: What are the prospects for direct democracy in the People's Republic of China?

A: Before anything else, China needs to have guarantees of fundamental human and political rights and the rule of law and guarantees that citizens who are molested by the government or other authorities can gain redress in court. These conditions are not fulfilled in the PRC but if they do not exist, you cannot really begin to act politically as a free citizen. Until guarantees for the free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly in public places, freedom of forming political associations and other basic rights are realized, there will be no room for having any meaningful democracy.

In a recent post we featured a scheduled referendum in Colombia desiged to protect water rights. Another more contentious initiative that will be put on the ballot next year would amend the country's constitution in order to allow President Alvaro Uribe to run for a third consecutive term in 2010. When Hugo Chavez of Venezuela attempted to include a similar measure on term limits in a referendum package of constitutional reforms, he was widely criticized by his opponents as being an authoritarian dictator. Some are now levelling the same criticism at Alvaro Uribe of Colombia for his refusal to rule out a third term and denounce the referendum.- Editor

Colombia's Uribe eyes one more run

Enjoying great popularity after suppressing guerrilla violence, Colombia's president has declined to discourage a movement to let him run for a third term.

Halfway through his second term, Alvaro Uribe, Colombia's wildly popular president, remains coy about whether he will seek a third four-year term in 2010.

Earlier this month, he strongly hinted he would sit out the next election and perhaps attempt a comeback in 2014. Days later, Uribe said he might run in 2010 if his political allies failed to unite behind a single candidate who would continue his hard-line security policies.

Uribe has done nothing to stop a citizen-based drive to change the Colombian Constitution to allow him to run again. For the moment, the charter prohibits presidents from serving more than two terms.

But this month, the Colombian Congress received a petition with more than five million signatures obliging lawmakers to consider a referendum on eliminating the ban on third terms.

''People say that he's doing good work and, if that's the case, he should continue in the job,'' said Carlos Alberto Jaramillo, one of the organizers of the petition drive.

RIDING HIGH

Many analysts believe Uribe would win if allowed to run.

Thanks to a string of military victories against the country's Marxist guerillas, Uribe is riding high in the polls. A Gallup survey puts his job-approval rating at 78 percent.

But critics warn that Uribe could damage his reputation and Colombia's close relations with the United States by seeking three consecutive terms.

Latin America has a history of military dictators. Thus, when democracy spread across the region in the late 1980s and early '90s, the constitutions of many of these nations were rewritten to prohibit presidential re-election.

Uribe engineered one constitutional change that allowed him to run for a second term in 2006. That effort led to allegations that members of his Cabinet had secured congressional support by promising jobs and other favors to legislators.

Going for a third term in 2010 ''would display an authoritarian tendency,'' said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington. ``It would also hurt his legacy which, on balance, has been very positive.''

Uribe has been vague, keeping all of his options on the table and thus avoiding the handicap of becoming a lame-duck leader.

Speaking before a university audience, he said he preferred to promote new leaders and to improve national security during his remaining two years in office and that the reelection issue would be a distraction.

''I think it's much better that Colombians consolidate the policies of democratic security, investor confidence and social cohesion rather than worry about the president remaining in power,'' he said.Shortly afterward, however, he indicated he would run should the campaign of the would-be successor from his political coalition falter.

But Uribe's maneuvering has prevented Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos and other pro-government candidates from launching their own campaigns, which could provide an opening for the opposition.

First sworn in in 2002, then reelected in 2006 by a landslide, Uribe made his mark by improving security in a nation plagued by kidnappings and where left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries held control of huge swaths of the countryside.

ENLARGED ARMY

Uribe added more than 100,000 troops to the armed forces. They have captured or killed key guerrilla leaders while thousands of paramilitaries have disarmed.

The military's most spectacular feat was a July 2 operation that rescued 15 high-profile hostages, including former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and three U.S. military contractors.

ECONOMYIMPROVED

Although the illegal drug trade remains robust, improved security has brought more tourism and foreign investment to Colombia and sparked six years of economic growth.

Still, everyone from Uribe's advisers to leading businessmen and his wife reportedly have urged him to step down in 2010.

''We shouldn't confuse the admiration that the business community has for Uribe with the danger of extending his rule longer than is advisable,'' said Luis Carlos Villegas, president of ANDI, an influential business association.

CLOUDS LINGER

Uribe has been weakened by a long-running investigation into ties between paramilitaries and his political allies in the Congress. Nearly 70 legislators, almost all of them pro-Uribe, are either in prison or under investigation, a scandal that has led to calls for the election of a new Congress.

In addition, Uribe has feuded with Supreme Court justices investigating the paramilitary scandal, has traded insults with former Colombian presidents and accused human rights organizations of working with the guerrillas.

''The president should consider taking a break to re-charge his batteries,'' declared a recent editorial in the

For the first time, a referendum initiated by a civil group rather than a political party will take place Nov. 15 in Kaohsiung City. Voters will be asked whether to cap primary and high school class size at 25 students, according to the Kaohsiung City Election Commission.

The referendum, initiated by the Kaohsiung Teachers' Association, aims to reduce the average number of students in primary and high school classes in the city from the current 30.8 and 33.8 respectively to 25 by 2011. As the first referendum held by a local government and initiated by a civil group rather than a political party since the passage of the Referendum Act in November 2003, this event is considered a landmark in Taiwan's history of direct democracy.

Three national referenda on six proposals have been held since the Referendum Act was first passed. All were highly political issues proposed by the two major political parties, and none achieved the 50-percent threshold of participation to validate.

At the "World of Direct Democracy" global seminar organized by the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe Oct. 1-2 in Switzerland, Hwang Jau-yuan, professor of law at National Taiwan University, called the case a good start of direct democracy in Taiwan. "The referendum in Kaohsiung is a demonstration of bottom-up democracy, which is a good sign for its development in Taiwan," he said. It is worth observing whether the referendum can pass the threshold of 50-percent turnout, he added.

The teachers' association began its campaign in January 2006. It first submitted the collected signatures in January 2008 in the hope that the referendum could be held in tandem with the presidential election in March. But the Kaohsiung City Election Commission reviewed the names and concluded that the association failed to garner enough valid signatures to meet the requirements for public endorsement--54,643 names or 5 percent of the eligible voters in the city.

The association quickly re-submitted a new list of signatures. On May 23, the commission announced that the case had officially qualified for a referendum.

By law, a turnout of 50 percent of registered voters, around 570,000 in Kaohsiung, is required to validate a referendum, and half of the votes need to be favorable for the proposal to pass. The association's referendum is expected to cost the city government an estimated US$855,000.

Kaohsiung's Education Bureau has voiced its opposition to the proposal, saying it will increase the city's financial burden. If the proposal is passed, it would mean adding 281 classes and providing 490 more teachers, as well as spending another US$984,600 per year on staff, not to speak of the money needed to build another 874 classrooms, said Chen Chin-yuan, deputy chief of the Bureau. Furthermore, it was argued that the referendum was pointless because the goal of 25 children per class would eventually be achieved through the declining birth rate.

Renn Hwai-ming, director of KTA Education Policy Center, said that the referendum is significant in terms of grassroots democracy as well as educational reform. However, he also admitted that the association is rather pessimistic about the prospects of the referendum. "We missed a great opportunity by not holding it jointly with the 2008 Presidential Election. Though our campaign gathers momentum each day, the interest for public issues and the drive to vote are simply unparalleled during election times," he said. Furthermore, limited by budget, the number of polling stations for the referendum is set at 203, far less than the 848 provided for the 2008 presidential election and the 839 for the last city mayor election, he added, stressing that the turnout would be seriously affected by the commission's arrangement.

"Should the referendum fail, by law we will not be able to raise the same issue again for the next three years. But we think it is still worth trying. At least, we have demonstrated to the public a constructive way of discussing public issues and the real essence of democracy," Renn said.

eThewkini - Government programmes such as national, provincial and local Izimbizo have assisted in the fight against corruption.

Addressing the delegates at the KwaZulu-Natal Anti-Corruption Summit at the Inkosi Albert Luthuli International Convention Centre (ICC) on Monday, Premier Sbu Ndebele said Izimibizo gave people the opportunity to raise issues of corruption through participatory democracy.

"The fact that the corruption can also be raised through participatory democracy is a sign that our democracy is mature. People can talk openly and freely and this is a major guarantee when compared to dictatorship and tyranny."

The two-day summit, themed: Towards an integrated system promoting good governance with emphasis on anti-corruption and ethics, aims to assess the prevalence and impact of fraud and corruption to service delivery in the province.

Mr Ndebele urged his peers and colleagues to talk to their counterparts who may be involved in corruption practices and find reasoning, if any, behind such behaviour.

"People who do not report corruption are equally guilty," said Premier Ndebele.

Other objectives of the summit include exploring effective preventive mechanisms aimed at combating the occurrence of fraud and corruption.

It also hopes to examine challenges for both combating and preventing corruption as well as exploring avenues for promoting professional ethics, among other things.

KwaZulu-Natal Director General, Dr Kwazi Mbanjwa said government departments should put aside a budget that can be used to fight corruption.

"We need to have an effective system, where members of the public can use to report corruption, without putting their lives at risk," said Dr Mbanjwa.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Unfortunately this candidate from British Columbia who is a strong supporter of direct democracy only received one percent of the vote in the recent Canadian elections which saw gains for the conservative party. - Editor

This is the last in a series of profiles on Okanagan-Shuswap candidates for the Oct. 14 federal election.

Darren Seymour of the Canadian Action Party says Canadians need to turn off the television and learn what is happening in their country.

Running in the federal election for the second time, Seymour says Canadians should be aware that over the past 50 years, Conservative and Liberal governments have given control of the country over to multi-national corporations.

“The feds have handed over the most sacred, crucial responsibility that a government has and that is creation of money for the country,” he says emphatically. “ Most people don’t understand money has to be created and as country grows more money has to be created. It is the most vital factor that determines the health of the country.”

He insists the majority of the money is being created as debt by the private banking industry.

Seymour also believes Canada’s sovereignty is being destroyed with deals like Free Trade. He charges that the deal had nothing to do with free trade, but was a corporate bill of rights.

“Now there’s the Security Prosperity Partnership, which is being created as quietly as possible,” he says. “This is seriously going to destroy the ability of Canada to make decisions about its own future.”

Instead, Seymour cautions the country will be dictated to directly by the biggest corporations in North America. He says Canadian taxpayers are mostly unaware that they are paying for 20 working groups “that are integrating and harmonizing all aspects of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico into a North American union, benefiting the biggest corporations and not benefiting small business or the Canadian people.”

Another key point Seymour says his party would address is the presence of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, something he says was built on U.S. administration lies perpetrated by large media outlets.

“There’s overwhelming evidence 9-11 was carried out by elements inside the U.S.,” he says. “People have to take responsibility to discover the truth if we’re going to take our country back.”

Seymour recommends voters visit globalresearch.ca before they decide how to vote.

A stock trader by profession, Seymour became interested in politics about 10 years ago when he delved into the banking system..

“It was my first awakening that things are not the way they seem. There’s lots of underlying stuff going on that we don’t know about,” he says. “It evolved from there, I became more aware and started doing research and learning.”

He says the more he learned, the angrier he got, and the more he wanted to get involved.

“I wanted to do something to engage in the world I live in.”

Seymour started an organization called Our World Community Collective, which was designed for people to learn collectively about their governments. He also designed a voting system that would allow voters’ concerns to be heard.

In his direct democracy system, members of the group identify their top concerns, with action taken on the issues most frequently addressed.

“If I am elected, I will donate 75 percent of my salary to the direct democracy system, where we can learn together and vote on what we want to do about it,” he says.

“The Canadian Action party is the only solution to get us out of this downward spiral.,” he says.

The Prime Minister of the Republic of Kenya, Hon. Raila A Odinga, in a lecture he delivered to commemorate the 25th anniverssary of The Guardian Newspaper in Lagos last week canvassed the practise of participatory democracy in the African continent. Ademola Adeyemo who attended the lecture reports

The gathering at the silver jubilee lecture of The Guardian Newspapers was a meeting of people of rich intellectual mind drawn from the media, the academia and the business circle who were at the Nigerian Institute for International Affairs,venue of the lecture to honour the invitation extended to them by the newspapers’ publisher , Mr Alex Ibru

The Guest lecturer, Hon Raila Odinga who became the Prime Minister of Kenya after a disputed and widely condemned ekection that claimed many lives talked about the problem of democracy in Africa and why the continent is under developed , According to him , whether African leaders like it or not, 90% of African people want democracy as a form of government

Said he " . The intrinsic values of democracy and good governance, and aspirations towards that condition, are universal. Ninety per cent of Africans say they want to live in a democracy, and this year, we have shown in Kenya, and Zimbabweans have also demonstrated that Africans are now more determined than ever before to have their say in governance. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, most of the remaining single-party dictatorships and one-man military regimes in Africa have crumbled and given way to emergent multi-party systems. There is an intense focus on replacing bad governance with good, and on the reform of political, economic, social and legal structures. There has been significant progress, but the way ahead is potholed with challenges.

According to him, Africa is the richest in terms of resources, and yet the poorest in terms of living standards. But he identified the major problem of Africa as that of being a victim of the self-interest of its exploiters. "The richest nations throughout history have used and abused our continent to fuel their own economies, extracting and benefiting from our raw materials and in the process hindering our development and entrenching poverty. This history led former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to remark that conditions in Africa were "a scar on the conscience of the world".

"Each year, nearly 15 million people die in Africa from causes that have their roots in poverty. To heal that scar requires sound, selfless and moral political leadership. At independence, we knew we could not rewrite the past, but we knew we could make a bold commitment to changing the future. We needed inspirational and visionary leadership that would perform effectively and deliver for the people.

Odinga also said African leaders who emerged after the independence had good vision, but unfortunately, they were swept aside and a group of exploiters of people and their wealth took over. ". Instead of ensuring state and individual security, a functioning rule of law, education, health, and an economic framework conducive to trade, growth and prosperity, they in many cases have entrenched despotic power to pursue personal enrichment. It is a sad fact that most of our people are too young to have known anything else".

Giving the example of Zimbabwe, he said" A recent and current example of someone who has dragged our continent's name through the mud yet again is Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. We were thrilled when Mugabe took power as Zimbabwe gained its independence, but he has turned out to be a grotesque parody of a leader. He became a brutal dictator, whose contempt for democracy he openly expressed when he said: "We are not going to give up our country for a mere X on a ballot. How can a ballpoint pen fight the gun?" These are chilling words uttered by a national leader in a continent struggling to entrench democratic ideals".

Odinga who criticized the African Union(AU) for not doing enough to solve the problem of Africa also accused leaders of maintaining criminal silence when they failed to condemn brutal regimes and sham elections, including the second round poll in Zimbabwe earlier this year.

"But we should not be surprised at the AU's failure to stand up for democracy. Many of our national leaders have skeletons rattling loudly in their cupboards. Their personal misdeeds bond these leaders in a diabolical conspiracy of silence and complicity, in refusal to condemn their neighbours for fear of the spotlight falling upon themselves."

But he however said the dictatorship of the leaders will not stand any longer as the people of Africa have undergone an attitudinal change towards any leadership that fails to meet their expectations." They are calling leaders to account. In the past four years alone, there have been more than 50 democratic elections in Africa, and more than two-thirds of sub-Saharan African nations live in freedom. This is the first exciting step on the way to achieving the kind of leadership that can sustain democracy and bring prosperity to our continent." he further said.

True democaracy, according to Odinga is about freedom of choice, a universal concept that is meaningless without free and fair elections where the people can choose those who will govern them, and also dismiss those who have failed them. "Genuine democracy is also about freedom of expression and association, under which people can form themselves into likeminded groups and seek political power. It is about the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, without which none of the other freedoms can be secured. Most importantly, genuine democracy is about transparency and accountability in government"

He also expressed regret that corruption has been and remains the major scourge preventing economic growth and stability in African nations which, he said, has constituted a barrier to national development, t infrastructural growth, t trade and investment and moral authority .

Said he "Corruption is a close relative of ethnicity, the enemy of national unity. While each of us is rightly proud of our origins, our traditions, the stories of the ancients told by our griots, and the security and warmth of a shared cultural identity, the time has come when we must turn our backs on negative ethnicity, the kind that has been used to destroy our fellow countrymen and women.

We need the developed world and they need us. We need significant private investment, and they need a strong and that groundwork can only lie in a bold determination to commit long-term to good governance and leadership on our continent, building development-oriented solutions for our myriad problems, and embracing true humanitarianism in our democratic revolution. It is a vital step for all of us, whether we are Kenyan, Nigerian, Zimbabwean, South African or a citizen of any other country on this great continent"

Odinga however concluded his lecture by challenging African leaders to rise up and take their destinies. in their own hands saying " we have the power, we have the opportunity. We can change our world. Our only enemy is inaction - otherwise, everything is possible. We must confront our demons, raise our heads proudly, shoulder the burden and go the extra mile. We must make democratic change - and all that this entails - not just possible, but a reality

Former Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon in his remarks said the stand of Odinga represented a new phase of African politics. "They really have vision and determination to put in their best and to put things right in their countries and Africa as a whole. The man gave a very good lecture and as you can see a lot of it came from the heart."

On Odinga's insistence that the right to vote should be accompanied with the right to be voted for, the former head of state described the view as a very bright one. "We should always allow the people to determine who they want to entrust their rights to; who they want to put in office. We should refrain from tinkering with the system to give advantage to pre-determined people. I have no problems with that at all and I can understand the premise he's coming from," Gowon said.

According to him, there is need for Nigeria to strengthen its democracy. His words: "One of the problems is that we practice democracy in a very selfish way; in a wrong way. There should be no question on African democracy or a European democracy. Democracy is democracy and it needs to be practised in the correct way everywhere in the world. If it is done correctly and everybody plays by the rule of the game, all will be well. If your vote and my vote count, and it is respected and done correctly, then all will be well. I really hope that will happen one day in this country. He lamented that it is a pity that no African country can beat its chest to say it is practising true democracy today "Elections were being rigged accross Africa and this call for serious concern . Gowon also appealed to the leaders of Zimbabwe and Kenya to desist from "politics of winners take all "

Other guests also commented on Odinga’s lecture and agreed with the Kenyan Prime Minister on the theme of his lecture . They however picked holes with his recommended solutions to the problems of democracy in Africa.

Former governor of Ogun state, Chief Olusegun Osoba disagreed with the suggestion of using the political model of Kenya and Zimbabwe for resolving political problems in Africa. His words: "I'm still not sure whether the Kenyan or Zimbabwean option is a solution to African problems. When dictators rigged election and then go round to negotiate and give crumbs to the winner of the election, this gives one reasons for concern. I don't believe it is a solution to democracy in Africa. Democracy is democracy anywhere in the world.

"However, the right to elect, according to Odinga, must also be accompanied by the right to be elected, otherwise a man like Barack Obama will not be talking of even emerging presidential candidate of one of the major political parties in the United States, not to talk of ruling America. The right to elect must also come with the right to be elected. It's a long way for us, but I am confident we will get there one day."

Former governor of Kaduna state ,,Alhaji Balarabe Musa while rejecting the Kenyan model for Nigeria also,said "Everybody knows that in 2003, the PDP did not win the presidential election. In 2007, they did not win the presidential election. If you say, let it go for the sake of peace, then we would never have a legitimate election in Nigeria. We will continue to have illegitimate government. The Kenyan solution is not good for Nigeria, and I cannot recommend it to any country. The peoples' votes must count. The people must decide who should lead them."

Musa insisted that the right to elect and be elected, which Odinga advocated, does not exist in Nigeria. He said: "In the last election, no voting took place at all in some places and yet results were announced in those places. You also look at inflated votes, consensus candidates, buying candidates and voters with money. In Nigeria, you have the worst situation where there is no right to vote and there is no right to contest. Even when you force your way to contest, it is meaningless. Even if you vote, it is meaningless."

The Second Republic governor said the quality of the Nigerian politics is very low. "In fact, the Nigerian politics has now become a commercial proposition. That's why we are talking of the illegitimate thing, by the ANPP in particular and all the other political parties that have come to join the rigger of elections -- the PDP - in what they call Government of National Unity," said the radical politician.

Revolution, according Musa, still remains the option for solving the Nigerian political debacle."When we say revolution, we don't mean violence or armed struggle; we mean fundamental changes. This fundamental change can come in the form of election, which is no longer possible; it can come through the National Assembly; again this is not possible with what we have on the ground. This fundamental change can also come through government realising the dangers of corrupt political arrangement to themselves and for the country; again this is not possible.

"But the people can exercise their rights either through sustainable street demonstrations on specific national issues or social revolution. What other countries have done, Nigeria can also do. The time may not have come yet, but it will come. We have reached the end of the road."Musa further submitted.

Friday, October 17, 2008

BRASIL: Public Management CouncilsThe following website is an excellent resource for learning about local governance in Brazil. As has been noted previously in this blog, Brazil has been a trend-setting country in participatory democracy and participatory budgeting. Communities and organizations have much to learn from the structure exemplifiedon the following site (click on the link):

Enough signatures have been collected to put a referendum on water rights on the ballot next year in Colombia. This is the result of a strong grassroots effort. The referendum would establish water as a basic right and protect water resources from privatization. Another more contentious initiative that will be put on the ballot next year would amend the country's constitution in order to allow President Alvaro Uribe to run for a third consecutive term in 2010. When Hugo Chavez of Venezuela attempted to include a similar measure on term limits in a referendum package of constitutional reforms, he was widely criticized by his opponents as being an authoritarian dictator. Some are now levelling the same criticism at Alvaro Uribe of Colombia for his refusal to rule out a third term and denounce the referendum. Stay tuned, for we will be posting more about that referendum in the near future. - Editor

Approximately one thousand people marched from the National University of Colombia to the National Registry in Bogota to submitt 2,044,267 signatures supporting the Water Referendum. A colourful bus full of children from different schools of the city, like guardians of their future, closed the march. Colombian music performed by young people in stilts gave it a joyful and carnival atmosphere. At 3 pm aqueduct workers, environmentalists, indigenous people, public service supporters, and men and women of various ages entered, like a water torrent, the National Registry, to submit the signatures to the National Registrar. Without speeches and with little formalities, the diversity of expressions supporting this Referendum were shown, through moving statements of women of various ages; a little girl, an indigenous women.

Rafael Colmenares, spokesperson of the National Committee in Defense of Water and Life read the letter to the Registrar.

This popular initiative started two years ago and has managed to join different local, regional and national initiatives in defense of water and life. The second period of collecting signatures started on March 14, 2008. It was a huge challenge; signatures corresponding to at least 5% of the people authorized to vote needed to be collected in six months, approximately 1.4 million signatures. During this six months it was necessary to go to the streets and rivers to carry out the task.

However, it wasn´t difficult to get the support of the people. How can someone oppose to water being considered a fundamental right? Who doesn´t want to protect strategic ecosystems? How can someone accept the threats of water privatization?

Finally, the task was carried out, the Colombian people answered the call for water. Every day, different people approached the tents located at big cities and the regional comittee in defense of water and life to join the campaign, to collect signatures and submit them. This was a way of stating "here we are and will be, we commit to water, to life and to the future of our children and grandchildren".

The National Registry will rule on this issue next month, so we are still alert to the challenges to the Referendum and the movement in defense of water and life. That small river born on February 14^th , 2007, is a huge river now, impossible to dam.